The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (20 Viewers)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[BobE]

So this time he's telling the truth? He just mis remembered before?

 

[samiam5211]

So this time he's telling the truth? He just mis remembered before?

He apparently hoped more people would cover for the president, and has realized that he needs to avoid perjury charges.

 

[BobE]

Forgive me as I've been busy all day with people prodding my brain and Popeye's, But Lindsey G wanted the transcripts released and now that they are released he isn't going to bother reading them? I mean WTF.

 

[crosswatt]

So this time he's telling the truth? He just mis remembered before?

I think he baldfaced lied, because he's a super rich dude who didn't really understand that this isn't a situation where he can buy his way out of trouble. And that was explained to him by his lawyer clearly enough that his recollection suddenly shifted to match the other recollections that everyone else had.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Forgive me as I've been busy all day with people prodding my brain and Popeye's, But Lindsey G wanted the transcripts released and now that they are released he isn't going to bother reading them? I mean WTF.

Honest question, does the GOP not actually being genuine in their posturing surprise anyone? Lindsay Graham least of all? The one that catastrophized for years about Clinton, once famously grandstanding in Congress claiming that refusing to share information with Congress during their oversight process alone was an impeachable offense, only to become the lapdog of Trump and his monarchical view of executive privilege.

But more broadly, whether it was spending a dozen investigations defending closed door investigations, then crying about transparency, then voting against everything opening it up. Claiming they wanted the transcripts then not reading them, demanding of the whistleblower what they refused to demand of the president, the default should be at this point that the GOP is not acting in good faith, ever, until proven otherwise. Such a default will also help one avoid getting burnt when inevitably the goalposts move tomorrow to defend what Trump does that will no longer be tenable after today.

 

[Ayo]

It appears the question of whether there was a quid pro quo or not is now settled. Now what's left to determine is if the request was made to personally benefit only the president and if so ... is that is an impeachable offense.

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo (Published 2019)

Gordon D. Sondland recounted how he told Ukrainian officials that military aid was tied to their commitment to investigations President Trump wanted.

www.nytimes.com

A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.

The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.

The testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.

I was thinking about this "substantial" new testimony - and had the following impression. This is totally based on optics and a bit on gut, so I'm not making any claims. Just the way this scenario struck me and I fully realize it might very well not be this.

The thing that stands out about Sondland is that he secured his position as EU ambassador because he donated a ton of money to Trump. His million-dollar donation got him a job in Europe as a member of Trump's cabinet. His donations were rewarded with this sort of prestigious gig.

He's not as incompetent or unqualified as DeVos, for example, and his nomination had bipartisan support. But I also get the impression that he approached the testimony differently than did diplomats who had been in their positions for much longer. He sees his testimony as in service to Trump, a guy he'd written a fat check for, as opposed to the broader issue of national interest and security. Whether he's protecting himself or Trump or both, it seems he wasn't quite as forthright in his testimony.

And, I think it's possible he felt other witnesses were going to do the same. Because that's how he operates and how the generally sycophantic operate who have been installed in some positions in the Trump administration.

Then, we start hearing about what and how other officials have testified. And it becomes clear, at some point, that a lot of other witnesses don't have the same personal loyalties to Trump and, instead, see their loyalties as being in service of their position and the country and matters of national interest/security. It also becomes clear that Sondland's testimony might be something of an outlier and the outlying nature of that testimony might well make him vulnerable to something down the road.

DJ said "sounds like someone doesn't want to go to jail" and that's the immediate impression I got. And Sondland finds himself in a position where he needs to get some additional things on record.

Again, basing this on impression and timing and what it has felt/looked like to me at this seeming sudden change of heart (assuming the revised, updated testimony can accurately be termed such)

But we've seen before examples of career, long-serving officials who are working under one set of principles and someone appointed by Trump who seems to operate differently. An example that comes to mind is the handling of the VA firing of Shulkin and the nature of the 15-1 vote. And DeVos, of course. I'd also be inclined to toss Barr in there, too.

Hopefully, at some point, we reach a critical mass where we return to service to country as being the primary obligation of holding political office - and this isn't just a criticism of the federal level. It's pervasively endemic, it seems

 

[superchuck500]

I think its fair to view Sondland's supplemental testimony as potentially an effort to avoid perjury jeopardy or to at least support his reputation after this episode concludes.

But I don't' think it's necessarily true that the supplemental testimony is an election of the truth over Trump. I think in the testimony, he is intentionally ambiguous about whether conditioning the aid/arms package on the Zelensky investigation announcement came from Trump himself. This potentially sets up an argument that while Trump clearly wanted the investigation and intended to use the US relationship to persuade Zelensky to get on board, the persuasion was only rhetorical - the decision to actually condition the aid on the announcement didn't come from Trump.

If that's what Sondland is attempting to do, it still is seemingly in conflict with the previously released text messaging between Sondland, Taylor, and Volker that Trump "wants the deliverable." Though I suppose that it's still possible for both to be true.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Regardless of Sondland's motivation for amending his testimony, he's about to find out the extent of trump's loyalty. I have this feeling that the trump has found his scapegoat in Sondland. I'm not going to say it will be effective at all, but it sure will change the the talking points his supporters will use in trump's defense.

 

[wardorican]

It's totally perfect... no case... ok, a weak case...

 

[Ayo]

But I don't' think it's necessarily true that the supplemental testimony is an election of the truth over Trump. I think in the testimony, he is intentionally ambiguous

I don't think it's "necessarily true" either - just an impression that I had. And whether we call it outright lies or not 'truth,' the vibe of deception around "intentional ambiguity" is problematic for about the same reasons, imo

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Burtifus]

The testimony of Sondland and others have proven definitively that a quid pro quo relationship existed between corruption investigations in Ukraine and specific military funding and/or a White House visit. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent's transcript was released earlier today. His testimony makes it harder to believe that the purpose of the corruption investigations were for the benefit of the United States.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D009.pdf

Kent: Taylor indicated that he had talked to Tim Morrison, who is the senior director for Europe, who replaced Fiona Hill. And Tim indicated that he had talked to Gordon. And Gordon had told him, Tim, and Tim told Bill Taylor, that he, Gordon, had talked to the President, POTUS in sort of shorthand, POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelenskyy to go to a microphone and say investigations, Biden, and Clinton.

If POTUS were truly looking for Ukraine to commit to investigations into corruption (a very legitimate quid pro quo), it's unlikely the only act of good faith he required before releasing the money was a press announcement naming his two biggest political rivals. Are these impeachable acts or politics as usual is for each of us to decide individually. I hope in this hyper-partisan environment we respect that reasonable people might disagree on thatbut we all need to see the basic facts the same or there's little hope for any open dialogue in the future.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I've fallen a bit behind, because, quite frankly, hanging out with my family in Disney was more appealing than talking with y'all...

One possibility, there can be others of course, is that a defense can paint the initial complaint as driving the story so to speak. ITs why politicians, corporations, prosecutors, even high profile criminal defendants, etc., talk about "Getting out in front of the story."

So, it's more about perception and influence than about the actual hard facts right? You're talking about the defendant's right to influence the jurors (in this case the Senators and the public that would pressure those Senators into voting a certain way).

So, to what degree is the value of knowing the whistleblower's motivations from a framing a defense standpoint? For example, let's take the most likely case - we've got a career bureaucrat that's registered as a Democrat, and let's say that s/he was indiscreet enough to post some critical comments about Trump on social media. How would you frame the argument for the defense?

The reason I'm going down this path is to weigh the costs and benefits here. Would you agree that if this case does not lead to Trump's removal (which is what is likely going to happen), and the whistleblower's identity is revealed, the whistleblower's ability to effectively do his/her job will be impacted? Ie, do you think it is likely that revealing the whistleblower's identity will result in some measurable harm to the whistleblower?

Absolutely. But he or she did not go to the press.

True, but most newspapers have stated policies of not outing whistleblowers (just like they don't name victims of rape, or minors or so on). You're basically asking them to go against their own stated policies.

Possibly. But why should the press be concerned about that in a matter as big as the impeachment of a President? Even more so if there is evidence of a partisan motive?

I think they need to weigh the value of outing the whistleblower against the damage to said whistleblower and the potential for harming their own ability to develop anonymous sources.

Which is why I'm trying to determine the value of knowing the whistleblower's identity to the defense. Can you think of examples where the defense successfully learned the identity of an anonymous tipster and used that to successfully defend their client? I think that would help me.

In my imperfect example of a tipster leading the police to a money laundering operation, I'm not sure if knowing that the tipster wanted to sleep with the defendant's wife really makes much of a difference. But I've never defended anyone in court before.

I don't think it is over the top at all.
I don't agree at all with Trump that this is a witch hunt or a political show trial or whatever - there is a legitimate basis for inquiry and investigation. BUT - withholding the name of the person who essentially created the narrative that is the basis for the investigation, and thereby hiding any potential political motivation strikes me as tending more to a show trial than an open and transparent move to remove a sitting a President.

Why did the NYT withhold the identity of the whistleblower but mention he is a CIA analyst? To me, it seems like there was an attempt to add credibility to his claim. Why else would they do it? So they added credibility to his claim but refuse to release information that might call into question a political motivation for his claim?

It's a valid question I think. The simplest answer is that they believe the whistleblower is credible (which is now an established fact) and that releasing his/her name would not add value to the story and would harm the whistleblower.

 

[JimEverett]

I've fallen a bit behind, because, quite frankly, hanging out with my family in Disney was more appealing than talking with y'all...



So, it's more about perception and influence than about the actual hard facts right? You're talking about the defendant's right to influence the jurors (in this case the Senators and the public that would pressure those Senators into voting a certain way).

So, to what degree is the value of knowing the whistleblower's motivations from a framing a defense standpoint? For example, let's take the most likely case - we've got a career bureaucrat that's registered as a Democrat, and let's say that s/he was indiscreet enough to post some critical comments about Trump on social media. How would you frame the argument for the defense?

The reason I'm going down this path is to weigh the costs and benefits here. Would you agree that if this case does not lead to Trump's removal (which is what is likely going to happen), and the whistleblower's identity is revealed, the whistleblower's ability to effectively do his/her job will be impacted? Ie, do you think it is likely that revealing the whistleblower's identity will result in some measurable harm to the whistleblower?




True, but most newspapers have stated policies of not outing whistleblowers (just like they don't name victims of rape, or minors or so on). You're basically asking them to go against their own stated policies.




I think they need to weigh the value of outing the whistleblower against the damage to said whistleblower and the potential for harming their own ability to develop anonymous sources.

Which is why I'm trying to determine the value of knowing the whistleblower's identity to the defense. Can you think of examples where the defense successfully learned the identity of an anonymous tipster and used that to successfully defend their client? I think that would help me.

In my imperfect example of a tipster leading the police to a money laundering operation, I'm not sure if knowing that the tipster wanted to sleep with the defendant's wife really makes much of a difference. But I've never defended anyone in court before.





It's a valid question I think. The simplest answer is that they believe the whistleblower is credible (which is now an established fact) and that releasing his/her name would not add value to the story and would harm the whistleblower.

It is hard to say exactly what the value of outing the whistleblower will be for a. the defense; or b. getting at the truth, Without knowing and investigating.

I think given the political nature of the thing, along with the magnitude - leads to a fairly strong belief that he should be known and investigated.
The fact that rumors are floating around that this guy is a political animal to some degree, was upset at Trump's election raises yellow flags to me. There are a million suppositions you can raise, and that wouldn[t be very productive here, but you asked what if he was Biden's drinking buddy . . . Well, what if it turns out that this whistleblower had connections to a witness or witnesses that have testified? Suppose he met with one or more them before their testimony or before filing his report?

And I understand the concern for chilling potential future whistleblowers - but that concern drops quite a lot to the extent that it is reported that the whistleblower, in this case, was a political partisan.
Even absent that, though, the magnitude of the result of the charge combined with it being the essential narrative being used to justify impeachment leads me to think the balance is in favor of releasing his name and having him testify.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

It is hard to say exactly what the value of outing the whistleblower will be for a. the defense; or b. getting at the truth, Without knowing and investigating.

I think given the political nature of the thing, along with the magnitude - leads to a fairly strong belief that he should be known and investigated.
The fact that rumors are floating around that this guy is a political animal to some degree, was upset at Trump's election raises yellow flags to me. There are a million suppositions you can raise, and that wouldn[t be very productive here, but you asked what if he was Biden's drinking buddy . . . Well, what if it turns out that this whistleblower had connections to a witness or witnesses that have testified? Suppose he met with one or more them before their testimony or before filing his report?

And I understand the concern for chilling potential future whistleblowers - but that concern drops quite a lot to the extent that it is reported that the whistleblower, in this case, was a political partisan.
Even absent that, though, the magnitude of the result of the charge combined with it being the essential narrative being used to justify impeachment leads me to think the balance is in favor of releasing his name and having him testify.

What is your definition of a political partisan? I really hope you don't mean a registered Democrat that wanted Clinton to win. If we're going down that route then you are really calling into question the ability of any person to fulfill the duties of a civil servant.

And I don't know what you mean about your hypothetical. The whistleblower complaint outright says that they met with people before filing his/her report. That was the basis for the report. It basically said that s/he had conversations with multiple people that led him/her to believe that the President was acting improperly.

And please go ahead and outline what you would want them to testify about.

I really don't see how it changes the testimony that's already been given. We know for a fact that Trump pressured Ukraine to make a public announcement that they were investigating Biden and that the US' commitment of $400 million in aid was contingent on this announcement. We know all this through testimony not coming from the whistleblower.

Theoretically all you should need to know about the whistleblower is that the Trump appointed IG found the report to be credible. And that justifies an investigation. That's as far as the whistleblower is useful -- are they credible enough to start an investigation. The Trump appointed IG found him/her credible, so an investigation was started, following House rules established by the Republican congress. All testimony now is given by named witnesses.

 

[BobE]

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I think given the political nature of the thing, along with the magnitude - leads to a fairly strong belief that he should be known and investigated.

This is the part that falls flat to me. Multiple corroborating witnesses have been deposed, including at least one that was actually on the phone call. If the substance of the whistleblower complaint has been corroborated by named witnesses, what more can the whistleblower add?

 

[MT15]

Jim, it seems to me you are outlining the possibility of a broad conspiracy organized by a partisan WB, who then coached the witnesses to all commit perjury. And giving that (pretty remote) possibility as justification for outing the identity of the WB, even though that would effectively have a huge chilling effect on anyone who in the future entertained the notion of shedding light on government abuses.

Do I have that right?

I don’t see any other way to interpret what you are saying justifies the need to expose the WB.